Hypothetical question, or is it? The Iraq war waging now shows that there is a definite unwillingness to accept coalition casualties, and I would say this is more prevalent from the Yanks. Not the Coalition armies as such, though they do I believe 'probably' feel the same, but the Coalition peoples themselves and politicians. This begs important and far reaching questions as to whether we actually have the will to fight a major conflict with the ensuing casualties that would undoubtedly occur. And the convictions of the politicians when they make the decision that war is required must be brought into question because they seem to look at their carreer as a politician before the right or wrong of a conflict. Personnally, if a politician sends the troops in, then that politician must be believe in the reasons 'why' he is sending the troops in before they think of their already overly subsidised carreer. The NI peace process came about, IMO, for two reasons. Firstly, because Blair wanted peace at 'any' cost and be the man who brought that peace [sic] to NI, and secondly, it was good PR for coming election campaigns. This war came about for a number of reasons, but I don't believe for a minute that it was to get rid of a regime and stop them getting WMD's; that, at best, was a side issue and added bonus. So do we have the will to fight a war and should we let our Governments decide what is just and what is acceptable casualty figures?